You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 5, 2019

Myanmar Enacts Copyright Law

Myanmar’s Copyright Law was finally enacted into law on May 24, 2019, effectively repealing the old Copyright Act of 1914. The law lays out the new legislative framework for the protection of literary and artistic works and other related rights, to be implemented through administrative bodies and subsidiary regulations that will be issued in due course.

Overview

Arguably the most notable feature of the new Copyright Law is that it accords copyright protection to foreign works, unlike the repealed Copyright Act of 1914. Works created by non-citizens or non-residents are protected if they are first published in Myanmar, or published in Myanmar within 30 days of first publication elsewhere. It is important to note that Myanmar is not yet a signatory of the Berne Convention, which would require member countries to grant the same copyright protection to nationals and foreigners, regardless of publication in the country.

In line with international standards and practice, copyright in literary and artistic work subsists throughout the life of the author and for 50 years after their demise, whereas works of applied art are protected for a period of 25 years. Audiovisual works and films are protected for 50 years from the date of publication only. While copyright protection will arise automatically without the need for registration, it is possible to file for voluntary recordation of copyright under the new Copyright Law. Further, the law also addresses the protection of an author’s moral rights, such as the right of attribution and the right to integrity.

The law provides for the formation of statutory collective management organizations, which, upon approval, will have the authority to act on behalf of rights owners and to administer the rights assigned to them. In addition the law provides technological protection measures, and the unauthorized removal and alteration of digital rights management information is strictly prohibited.

Offenses

Offenses under the Copyright Law include the unauthorized reproduction, transmission and distribution of copyrighted works, the possession of infringing goods for commercial purposes, the importation of infringing items into Myanmar, and more. The minimum penalties stipulated for specified offences are imprisonment not exceeding one year and a fine not exceeding MMK 1 million (approx. USD 660). Repeat offenders may be subject to imprisonment of up to 10 years and a maximum fine of up to MMK 10 million (approx. USD 6,600). Border control measures are also available under the new Copyright Law, and the provisions in the law mirror the customs protection framework laid down in the Trademark Law.

Notably, the unauthorized reproduction of literary and artistic works by libraries for non-commercial purposes will not constitute copyright infringement. Other statutory defenses to copyright infringement include, among others, use for reporting of news and current events, and reproduction for purposes of research and private study. Notwithstanding the above, the Copyright Law includes a provision allowing for a two-year transition period from the enforcement of the law, during which the distribution of unauthorized copies of protected works is permissible.

Next Steps

With the promulgation of the Copyright Law, which comes after the recent enactment of the new Trademark Law, Industrial Designs Law, and Patent Law earlier this year, the long-awaited passage of all four pieces of IP legislation in Myanmar is now complete. However, similar to the other three pieces of legislation, the effective date of the Copyright Law will be announced at a later stage, and applications for voluntary recordation of copyright are not yet being accepted while the administrative structures necessary to do so are still being established. We recommend that rights owners audit their current portfolio of works, and consider filing for recordation of their copyright once the new law is in force, as such registration documents may form prima facie proof of ownership of these works, which are important when seeking to enforce or to commercialize their copyright.

For more information on this development, or to enquire about the new law, please contact our Myanmar office at  [email protected] or on +95 1 255 208.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation